Kitabı oku: «A Brief History of Forestry.», sayfa 25
GREAT BRITAIN AND HER COLONIES
Historical Inquiries concerning Forests and Forest Laws, by Percival Lewis, 1811, gives a full account of the practices in the old ban forests.
English Forests and Forest Trees, 1853, anonymous, gives an interesting account of the old ‘forests’ and their history.
Our Forests and Woodlands, by John Nisbet, 1900, has a chapter on the historical development of forest laws.
Wm. Schlich, Manual of Forestry, vol. I, 3d ed., 1906, brings in convenient form an account of conditions in various parts of the British Empire.
Schwappach, Forstliche Zustände in England, Zeitschrift für Forst- und Jagdwesen, 1903, is an account of forest conditions from the pen of a practical observer.
B. Ribbentrop, Forestry in India, 1900. Also various reports of the forest departments of the various British Colonies.
It is a remarkable fact that the nation which can boast of the most extensive forest department in one of her colonies, has at home not yet been able to come to an intelligent conception even, not to speak of application, of proper forest policy or forest economy.
One of the English authorities on the subject writes still in 1900: “With so much land of poor quality lying uncultivated in many parts of the British Isles, the apathy shown towards forestry in Britain is one of the things that it is impossible to understand.”
If we should venture to seek for an explanation, we would find it in geographical and physical conditions, but still more in personal and political characteristics, historically developed, such as also in the United States make progress of forestry slower than it would otherwise be.
Due to her insular position with which in part the development of her naval supremacy is connected, England can readily supply her needs by importations. Situated within the influence of the Gulf stream, the climate is much milder than her northern location would indicate, and is in no respect excessive. The topography is mostly gentle, except in Scotland and Wales, and the riverflow even all the year. Hence the absence of forestcover has not been felt in its physical influences.
Britons, Picts, Scots, Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons and Normans are the elements which have amalgamated to make the English people. Through endless warfare and political struggle the three countries, England, Scotland and Ireland had, by the year 1600, come under one ruler, although final legislative union with Scotland did not take place until 1707, and with Ireland not until 1800.
Theoretically, forming a constitutional monarchy, practically, an aristocracy with republican tendencies, the history of the islands has been a struggle, first to establish race supremacy, then to secure the ascendency of the nobility and landholders over the king and the commoners, in which the former have been more successful than the barons in other parts of Europe.
Politically, the Englishman is an individualist, jealous of his private interests and unwilling to submit to government interference for the public welfare. Hence, State forestry, which is finally the only solution of the forestry problem, appears objectionable. Commercial and industrial enterprise rather than economic development appeals to him; the practical issue of the day rather than demands of a future and systematic preparation for the same occupy his mind. He lacks, as Mr. Roseberry points out, scientific method, and hence is wasteful. Moreover, he is conservative and self-satisfied beyond the citizens of any other nation, hence if all the wisdom of the world point new ways, he will still cling to his accustomed ones. In the matter of having commissions appointed to investigate and report, and leaving things to continue in unsatisfactory condition he reminds one of Spanish dilatoriness. These would appear to us the reasons for the difficulty which the would-be reformers experience in bringing about economic reforms.
1. Forest Conditions
Cæsar’s and Strabo’s descriptions agree that Great Britain was a densely wooded country. The forest area seems to have been reduced much less through long-continued use, than through destruction by fire and pasture, and by subsequent formation of moors, so that it is now, excepting that of Portugal, the smallest of any European nation in proportion to total area, and, excepting that of Holland, in proportion to population.
Of the 121,380 square miles, which Great Britain and Ireland represent, less than 4 per cent., or 3 million acres, (880,000 in Scotland, 303,000 in Ireland) are forested, one-fourteenth of an acre per capita; but there are nearly 33 % of waste lands, namely over 12 million acres of heaths, moors and other waste lands capable of forest growth, and another 12 million acres partly or doubtfully so, while the agricultural land in crops and pasture comprises about 48 million acres. The waste areas re-forested, it is believed, could meet the consumption now supplied by importations. Notably in Scotland, extensive heaths and moors of many hundred square miles in the Northern Highlands and the Grampian mountains – well wooded in olden times, the woods having been eradicated supposedly for strategic reasons – are now without farms or forests, and are mainly used for shooting preserves. In the last thirty years, the land under tillage has continuously decreased, and now represents less than 25 per cent. of the whole land area, grasslands occupying 38 per cent.
The agricultural land as well as the mountain and heath lands, are to the largest extent owned by large proprietors (in 1876, 11,000 persons owned 72 per cent. of the total area of the British Islands). With the exception of 67,000 acres of crownlands, the entire forest area is owned privately, and that mostly by large landed proprietors, there being no communal ownership, except that the municipality of London owns a forest area (Epping Forest) devoted to pleasure, and the Water Board of Liverpool has begun to plant some of its catchment basins.
Practically the entire wood supply is imported, and the rate of importation is rapidly increasing. While in 1864 it was 3.4 million tons, in 1892, 7.8 million tons worth 92 million dollars; in 1899, 10 million tons and 125 million dollars; in 1902, it had grown to 138 million dollars, and in 1906 to 141 million (700 million cubic feet) in which $7.4 million of wood manufactures, against which an export of $19 million mainly wood manufactures, must be offset. This makes England the largest wood importer in the world, Germany coming next, and the amount paid to other countries exceeds the value of her pig iron output. Nearly 90 per cent. of the import is coniferous material, from Sweden, Russia and Canada. The home product, mostly oak ties, mineprops, etc., satisfies about one-sixth of the consumption. In addition to timber and lumber, over 10 million dollars of wood pulp, and 60 million dollars of by-products are imported. The total wood consumption per capita is between 12 and 14 cubic feet, half of what it was 50 years ago.
Pine is the only native conifer of timber value, and oak is the most important native deciduous tree, found mostly in coppice or in old, overmature, straggling pasture woods. Compact larger forest areas are entirely absent, but there are many small plantations and parks. For, while Englishmen have not been foresters, they have been active treeplanters, and the mild climate has permitted the introduction of many exotics, especially American conifers. Most of these plantings have been for park and game purposes. The most noted forest plantations are found in Scotland, among them the larch plantations of the Duke of Athole (begun in 1728), of at one time over 10,000 acres, the ducal woodlands now covering over 20,000 acres; the pinery of 25,000 acres, belonging to the Countess of Sealfield, the best managed forest property, partly in natural regeneration, and others. But these plantations too are mostly widely spaced and trimmed, hence not producing timber of much value, so that timber of British production is usually ruled out by architects.
2. Development of Forest Policies
The Saxons and Normans were primarily hunters, and this propensity to the chase has impressed itself upon their forest treatment into modern times.
The Teutonic Saxons undoubtedly brought with them the feudal and communal institutions of the Germans, under which territory for the king’s special pleasure in the chase was set aside as ‘forest’, and this exclusive right and privilege was on other territory extended to the vassals, while the commoners were excluded from the exercise of hunting privileges on these grounds.
The Normans not only increased the lands under ‘ban’, but they increased also in a despotic manner the penalties and punishments for infraction of the forest laws, and enforced them more stringently than was done on the continent. The feudal system was developed to its utmost. Besides ‘forests’ in which the king alone had exclusive rights, and in which a code of special laws, administered under special courts, was applied, there were set aside ‘chases’, hunting reserves without the pale of the forest laws; ‘parks’, smaller, enclosed hunting grounds; and ‘warrens’, privileged by royal grant or prescription as preserves for small game. Whole villages were wiped out, or lived almost in bondage to satisfy this taste for sport. In the ‘forests’, of which in Elizabeth’s time not less than 75 distinct ones were enumerated, withdrawing an immense area from free use, both ‘vert’ and ‘venison’, – wood and game, – belonged to the king; a host of officers, – stewards, verderers, foresters, regarders, agistors, woodwards, – exercised police duties, and oppressed and ground the people by extortions, while special courts, – ‘woodmote’, ‘swainmote’, ‘court of justice seat’, – enforced the savage and cruel laws. The first of these laws was supposed to date from Canute the Great, in 1016, but was eventually found to be a forgery perpetrated by William I in order to lend historical color to his assertion of ‘forest’ rights.
A partial reduction of forests, and a modification of the cruelty and unreasonableness of the laws was obtained by the Charta de Foresta, in 1225, which formulated the laws into a code, and again by the Forest Ordinance of 1306. But not until 1483, under Edward IV, were the people living within ‘forests’ permitted to cut and sell timber, and to fence in for seven years portions of the reserved territory. The last territory was ‘afforested’, i.e., withdrawn for purposes of the chase, under Henry VIII, but he had to secure the consent of the freeholders. The Long Parliament, in 1641, stopped at least the extension of forests, and modified the application of the laws to a more reasonable degree.
The forest laws are still on the statutes, but have fallen into desuetude; the last ‘forest court of justice seat’ was held under Charles I. The ‘forests’ themselves have also almost entirely vanished, some being abolished as late as Queen Victoria’s time, by act of parliament, but the last action under the ‘forest laws’ was had in 1862 when the Duke of Athole tried to establish his right as ‘forester’ for the crown. A full account of the forest laws is contained in Manwood’s volume, the title page of which is here reproduced.
In Scotland the same usages and laws existed, only very much less rigorously enforced, until, in 1681, the extension of ‘forests’ was discontinued by parliamentary act.
It will be understood that the term forest did only distantly refer to woodland and that no economic policy had anything to do with the laws. Only incidentally was forest growth protected and preserved for the sake of the chase – the same medieval policy which still largely animates the forest policy of the State of New York.
The woods outside the ‘forests’, which had mainly served for the raising of hogs, and for domestic needs, experienced at various times unusual reduction by fire. General Monk, among others, laid waste large areas on the Scottish borderland in Cromwell’s time.
The first serious inroads by extensive fellings occurred under Edward III in the first half of the 14th century to enrich the treasury for the French wars. Again, Henry VIII in the 16th century, when he seized the church properties for his own use, turned them into cash. A hundred years later, James I reduced the forest area, especially in Ireland, by his colonization schemes. Yet both, Henry VIII and James I, are on record as encouraging forest planting for utility. Charles I, James’ successor, always in need of cash, alienated many of the crown forests, and turned them into cash, besides extorting money through the forest courts. During the Revolution, beginning in 1642, and during Cromwell’s reign a licentious devastation of the confiscated or mortgaged noblemen’s woods took place.
Finally, under Charles II, the needs for the royal navy forced attention to the reduction of wood supplies, and as a result of the agitation to encourage the growth of timber, a member of the newly formed Royal Society was deputed to prepare an essay, which, published in 1662, has become the classic work of English forest literature, namely John Evelyn’s Sylva, or “A Discourse of Forest Trees,” which has experienced eleven editions. It should, however, be mentioned that an earlier writer, whom Evelyn often quotes, Tuffer, before the reign of Elizabeth, in 1526, published his “Five Hundred Points of Husbandry,” a versification in which treeplanting received attention. Ever since that time, periodically and spasmodically, the question of forestry has been agitated, without much serious result.
From 1775 to 1781, the Society of Arts in London offered gold medals and prizes for treeplanting, and in the beginning of the 19th century a revival of arboricultural interest was experienced, perhaps as a result of an interesting report by the celebrated Admiral Nelson on the mismanagement of the forest of Dean, concern for naval timber giving the incentive, in which he recommended the planting of oak for investment.
At that time, a Surveyor-General, with an insufficient force, was in charge of the crown forests. In 1809, the management was placed under a board of three Commissioners, one of whom being a member of the parliament was to be changed with the administration. Under this management, graft became so rampant that, in 1848, a committee of the House of Commons was appointed, whose report revealed the most astonishing rottenness, placing a stigma on government management such as we still uncover in the United States from time to time. A reorganization took place in 1851. At that time the royal forests and parks, reduced in extent to about 200,000 acres, showed a deficiency of $125,000, mostly, to be sure, occasioned by the parks. There was then still a tribute of some 600 bucks to be delivered to various personages, as was the ancient usage.
At present there are some 115,000 acres classed as royal forest, but only 67,000 acres are really forest, consisting of more or less mismanaged woods, under the administration, not forest management, of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, with Deputy Surveyors in charge of the ranges. Although there are a few notable exceptions in the management, it is to be noted that the same stupid ignorance, which introduced the clause into the Constitution of the State of New York, was enacted into law in 1877 by the English Parliament, forbidding in the New Forest all cutting and planting. In 1900, there existed just one planting plan, made by a professional forester, namely, for a portion of the forest of Dean, while now only two other State properties and two or three private estates are managed under working plans.
In 1887, a Committee appointed to inquire into the administration of this property, expressed itself most dissatisfied, but a Committee of Parliament in 1890 whitewashed the administration and reported that the management was satisfactory.
These committees, as well as an earlier one, in 1885, were also to recommend measures for the advancement of forestry. They laid in their recommendations the main stress upon education, but no action followed, and it can be said that the government has never done anything for the advancement of forestry in the home country, whatever it may have done for the dependencies. A Departmental Committee again reported in 1902 with all sorts of recommendations, which have remained unheeded.
The interests of forestry as far as the government is concerned are at present committed to the Board of Agriculture, an unwieldy body created in 1889, from which this Departmental Committee was appointed. There is now, however, a strong movement on foot, led by foresters returned from India, to commit the government to some action with reference to the waste lands, and towards providing for educational means.
Another committee, appointed in 1908 to enquire into prospects of afforestation in Ireland, reported in favor of acquiring 300,000 acres of wood and 700,000 acres of unplanted land, dwelling especially on the benefit to be secured by providing employment and a check upon emigration of the rural population. Instead of acting upon this proposition the government directed the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion, which had issued its first report in 1907, to suspend its inquiry into the inroads of the sea and apply themselves to the inquiry as to “whether in connection with unclaimed lands or otherwise it is desirable to make an experiment in afforestation as a means of increasing employment during periods of depression, and how, and by whom such experiment should be conducted.”
In 1909, the Royal Commission on Afforestation and Coast Erosion reported at length, proposing the reforestation by a special Commission of nine million acres of waste land at a rate of 75,000 or 150,000 acres a year to be acquired by purchase – an elaborate plan, which so far has remained without result.
The government, although various committees have recommended it, has remained also callous in respect to educational policy, except that, in 1904, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests instituted a school (one instructor) in the Forest of Dean for the education of woodsmen and foremen.
As illustrative of the government’s peculiar attitude to forest policy in general, we may note a curious anachronism, namely the act of 1894, which relieves railway companies from liability for damage from locomotive fires, if they can prove that they have exercised all care, although traction engines cannot offer this excuse.
The first attempt to secure educational facilities dates to 1884 when a chair of forestry was established in the Royal Engineering College at Cooper’s Hill, an institution designed to prepare for service in India purely. Through private subscriptions, another chair of forestry was instituted in 1887 at the University of Edinburgh, and several agricultural colleges, notably that of Cirencester, as well as the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, had made provisions for teaching the subject in a way, but outside of Cooper’s Hill no adequate education in forestry was obtainable in Great Britain, until 1905.
In 1905, the forest department in Cooper’s Hill was transferred to Oxford, the three years’ course – one year to be spent in the forests of Germany or other countries – being as before designed mainly for aspirants to the Indian forest service. Now, besides Oxford, some nine other institutions offer courses in forestry – the reason for this educational development being difficult to imagine.
The name of Sir William Schlich, a German forester, and for some time the head of the Indian forest department now in charge of this school, is most prominently connected with the reform movement.
Altogether forest management and silvicultural practice are still nearly unknown in England, and, until within a few years, the useful idea of working plans had not yet penetrated the minds of owners of estates. This apathy is, no doubt, in part due to the fact that the government is in the hands of the nobility, who prefer to keep their “shooting ranges”, and do not see even a financial advantage from turning them into forest as long as they can derive a rent of from 10 to 40 cents per acre for shooting privileges.
Private endeavor has been active through the two arboricultural societies, the Royal Scotch, founded in 1854, and the Royal English, beginning its labors in 1880. The transactions of these societies in annual or occasional volumes represented the current magazine literature on forestry since the monthly Journal of Forestry and Estates Management, which began its career in London in 1877, transferred to Edinburgh in 1884, ceased to exist in 1885.
At present, a very well conducted Quarterly Journal of Forestry, started in 1907 by the Royal English Arboricultural Society replacing its Transactions and that of the Irish Forestry Association, also the Journal of the Board of Agriculture, occasionally, supply the needs of the continuously improving chances for development on forestry lines. Until within a short time the English professional book literature has been extremely meager, although a considerable propagandist, arboricultural, and general magazine literature exists. Schlich’s Manual of Forestry, first in three volumes published from 1889 to 1895, now in its second to fourth edition, enlarged to five volumes, is the most comprehensive publication. Another author deserving mention is John Nisbet, known by his Studies in Forestry (1894), who also engrafted continental silvicultural notions into later editions of James Brown’s The Forester, an encyclopædic work of merit. Several German and French works have been translated into English, notably K. Gayer: Die Forstbenutzung; R. Hess: Der Forstschutz; H. Fürst: Waldschutz.
John Croumbie Brown’s sixteen volumes on forests and forestry in various countries may be mentioned among the propagandist literature. The Arboricultural Societies mentioned also make a brave effort to advance professional development of forestry in their publications.
